Aluminum handgun frames

[FNH5-7]

On AR-15's aluminum lowers are perfectly acceptable and not viewed as "less durable". Ar 15's have had aluminum frames since their inception.

Why is it that aluminum handgun frames are viewed as less durable and AR-15 lowers are perfectly acceptable?

[lanzer]

On AR-15's aluminum lowers are perfectly acceptable and not viewed as "less durable". Ar 15's have had aluminum frames since their inception.

Why is it that aluminum handgun frames are viewed as less durable and AR-15 lowers are perfectly acceptable?

In general major moving parts in an AR15 such as the bolt carrier group is housed inside the upper receiver. The lower receiver doesn't deal with much movement, relatively speaking.

On a handgun there isn't an upper and lower receiver. The frame of a handgun deals with guiding the slide back and forth on every shot. There's a consensus that the movement of the slide promotes a lot of wear over time shall the frame be made of aluminum.

Though in practice, a gun that is being carried and doesn't face a duty cycle of over thousands and thousands of rounds might never face such a problem, and many owners of aluminum frame pistols swear by the reliability of their pistols after 20,000+ rounds. Of course, that might mean little for those who see handguns as something to be passed down to the next few generations.

It's a popular topic on the 1911 communities such as this one discussion:

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=353706

[JTROKS]

Back in the 80s I've seen some alloy frame S&W 5906 with bad wear on the rails. I also had a Taurus 92 that shot fine, but the wear on the rail was worrying me. I shot every week back in those days and shooting was a better choice of releasing stress than a bottle. I knew right away that I need to get guns made out of steel. So I stuck with revolvers and steel framed 1911s.

[Dezrat]

How many problems do you hear about the aluminum framed Sig pistols having?
I personally have a P220 that I've put about 4000 rnds. through. The frame still looks new. Maybe it's whether Aluminum is done right or done wrong?

[PseudoTsuga]

Why is it that aluminum handgun frames are viewed as less durable and AR-15 lowers are perfectly acceptable?

I don't view an aluminum 1911 frame as being less durable. When they first started making them, there sure was no shortage of hand wringing about it, but I think if you stick to the reputable manufacturers, I wouldn't worry about it.

Only one of my 1911s has an aluminum frame, but I'm gonna shoot that Springfield lightweight champion until my last day or it catastrophically explodes into a thousand pieces if I'm wrong!

It has many thousands of rounds on it now and it's just getting warmed up.

[BigBamBoo]

I owned a Colt Commander lightweight (aluminum frame) and with around 8000 rounds I discovered a crack where the slide stop hole is on the left side. Took it to well known pistol smith and he discovered more cracks an LOTS of wear on the frame rails.

Ordered a SS frame and never looked back.

For a carry gun or one that does not see high round count, they should be fine. But for a race/match gun, steel is the way to go IMHO.

[JDay]

In general major moving parts in an AR15 such as the bolt carrier group is housed inside the upper receiver. The lower receiver doesn't deal with much movement, relatively speaking.

The upper receiver is usually made out of a lower quality aluminum than the lower.

[CSACANNONEER]

I've probably got over 30,000 rounds through an aluminum framed 1911 and it's still running strong. I paid more for it than if it was a steel frame. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that a firearm would be less desirable just because it has an aluminum frame?

[Pupulepeter]

I'd guess because you can more readily see the wear on an aluminum handgun and, thanks to the internet, people are aware that once you get past a certain point the structural integrity is at risk. Steel frames get loose but stay strong and polymer frames have steel inserts.

I spent some time over on another forum where SIG rail wear was constant topic, but most of the advice and examples were either from competitive shooters who put tens of thousands of rounds down range annually or a new pistol with a slide burr that gauged a rail. Neither would probably be a worry for most folks, but the internet has a tendency to blow things out of proportion.

Personally, I only like steel frame or polymer guns due to the ability to modify the frame and I see polymer as a good light weight substitute for aluminum.

[I Swan]

Depends on the gun. I've never personallu seen a Ruger P series gun crack their aluminium frame but I've seen steel frame 1911's and BHP's do so.

[tophatjones]

On AR-15's aluminum lowers are perfectly acceptable and not viewed as "less durable". Ar 15's have had aluminum frames since their inception.

Why is it that aluminum handgun frames are viewed as less durable and AR-15 lowers are perfectly acceptable?

Compare the forces experienced by each lower. Both lowers have steel pins that hold the fire control parts. Both lowers have sliding parts (bolt carrier and slide). However, the AR lower doesn't experience any impact force, while the handgun frame does, assuming we're talking about Browning short recoil actions. Every time the gun is fired, the barrel cams down (or links down) smacking into the lower. Then upon return to battery, the slide stop pin is impacted by the force of the barrel/slide/recoil spring and transfers the energy to the frame at the SS pin hole. Polymer guns have steel inserts at these areas.

[himurax13]

I'd guess because you can more readily see the wear on an aluminum handgun and, thanks to the internet, people are aware that once you get past a certain point the structural integrity is at risk. Steel frames get loose but stay strong and polymer frames have steel inserts.

I spent some time over on another forum where SIG rail wear was constant topic, but most of the advice and examples were either from competitive shooters who put tens of thousands of rounds down range annually or a new pistol with a slide burr that gauged a rail. Neither would probably be a worry for most folks, but the internet has a tendency to blow things out of proportion.

Every single Sig I used to own had some burrs in the slide which caused the anodizing on the frame to wear it down to the bare aluminum in certain spots. It didn't take more than a few thousand rounds to notice this. This situation can be avoided if you liberally apply grease to the rails but I found out after years of just using oil.

I also found out that if you used one of the Sig 22 kits, the frame anodizing will wear out even faster and grease is too thick for the slide to function properly. I just sold them all and never worried about it again.

[CAGLS]

It's a matter of properly lubing the rails with grease as per Bruce Grey regarding aluminum framed Sigs to prevent galling from friction with a metal slide.

[bohoki]

my 226 is aluminum and it looks as good as hmm well at least the first month of use

my smith and wesson 910 is missing much of the black on the contact areas but is still working

[JackRydden224]

On AR-15's aluminum lowers are perfectly acceptable and not viewed as "less durable". Ar 15's have had aluminum frames since their inception.

Why is it that aluminum handgun frames are viewed as less durable and AR-15 lowers are perfectly acceptable?

Why? The short answer is because people are idiots.